ordon smith, president and c.e.o. of the national association of broadcasters. after that, part of our profile administrationmp officials, veterans affairs kin, and david shul housing and development secretary ben carson. at women a look addressing sexual harassment and their personalng stories. >> c span where history unfolds 1979 c-span was created as a public service by merica's cable television companies and brought to you by our cable or satellite provider. >> former senator gordon smith, of the national association of broadcasters. here to talk about some of the that faced bhi association. senator smith, to begin with, hat is your take on the net

neutrality condition. >> on that happy note, let me merry christmas, happy hon abbinga. he national association of broadcasters is neutral on net neutrality, we have members who it. for and members against it. members. represent the we debated it and took a pass on taking a position on that. and with all the other controversies swirl of course, we are glad that the heat is not it's a difficult issue. i remember wrestling with it issue, there are credible arguments on both sides. >> television stations - it's a quaint term any more, to call something a television television n local are online, and they are just as much online as on tv any more. are, and we - most of my they do havembers, internet fights.

to restricts trying their access. you know, in the end. a debate that - as i histled with it, it came down to whether if it's a shortage, is it best managed by market government regulation. it's why it's a partisan issue. - but i think our chairman, has long had a principled deflected as he's chairman of the f.c.c. and yet he's taken a lot of heat for it too. deal were unable to dole with it in congress, so it falls i suspect it and will ping-pong back and forth as o the right policy until the evidence is in, and there's proven to be a problem that address it. and come up with constitutional

majority. further into et ssues, let's bring paul kirby of telecommunications reports into the conversation. >> one issue you do have a the ion on as a group is repacking of tv sayings after that year, nearly 1,000 stations are being repacked. congress reserved $1.75 billion, enough money, e give us a sense of what the oncerns are, and do you hope congress comes up with the extra or later. r many say the f.c.c. has money they should come forward down the time frame. > we thing sooner the wet better. congress is not capable of not doing a lot of things fast. this is something that will hand in the congressional office if are pushed tations off the air because of something

beyond their control. or getn't have the money the crews to make the repacking possible. document and money with having to be repacked. mind.ess will be news about whether and sport available. not be we have friends on both sides of the il. hope theystand it, we address it. particularly the money, the here, the spectrum option, was that it was voluntary, those that chose not to tell out. and to remain in business were to be negatively impacted. of the dollars. and their ability to serve their local community. so they have to get the dollars right. right.

what the numbers known now, and they have to get the time right. this is no easy thing to repack a television tower. because of weather. and it's rtages, hazardous work. and so we hope congress will this, because it will - my experience that nothing made ring more, and my reception room in the senate not television sets working. we'll get their attention, but ope to do it in a way that is ahead of the problem. t's never visited on capital heel. >> a safety valve has been asked for. are ke sure stations harmless to make sure things are beyond their chrome. the f.c.c. says there's a lot in their control. a station may not have to repack deadline, if things come up outside their control. is that enough. do you want something in f.c.c.tion to say to the to say you have to make sure harmless.re >> i do trust the f.c.c. on

that. broadcasting he industry. they want free industry to be available. they don't have is the money that will be required that to disperse. so i know there's a lot of people in good faith. i would say is the broadcasters have no incentive to delay this. like this in the review mirror, as fast as they can be. so they can move on into the future. > t-mobile was the largest wireless bidder. hey worked to help them to move. team mobile wants access to the spectrum. your view on t t-mobile's activize, you hope to folks.hey worked including new york. o get access to a major station. it's much appreciated. to have a spectrum

brought. any supplement m that can be given to facilitate this with is welcome. > and the related issue, microsoft andbrought. other co want the f.c.c. and others to channels for unlicensed devices. this, s been critical of and other members saying that spectrum might be needed. give us a sense for why you have been so critical of that. microsoft - i , love that company. we all benefitted because of products. i would say they are one of the wealthiest companies in the world. have participated in buying spectrum for this very thing. we want rural broadband. getting ahead of this issue a bit, until we get the repack down, because the future has to broadcasters, d it's not an either/or

proposition. we get the - all of the pectrum repacked and broadcaster moved. until we know the full onsequences intended and unintended, that their request for free speck trauma is a when we t premature have a big public policy goal to repack.in the >> senator smyth. one of conversations we are our g is about infrastructure. should rural broadband be that? ed in >> absolutely. i think it can be. when the facts are better known, technology more proven up. microsoft. room for breadband.al with the new receiver standard. a t gets deployed on voluntary basis. the world of the broadcaster's is broadcasting and

broadba broadband. have a ll in the future two-way transmission to the viewer, we want rural broadband as well. we don't want that at the price doing something too early, until we get all of this other us.ness behind >> as we are taping this. moving through congress. does it benefit the brode the casters. >> broadcasters are benefited by the taxg that is not in bill. we work hard with other businesses to try to keep out of it. and that is when - when you go rules cut a tax, budget required that they be paid for. advertising deductibility has already been a necessary efense, deductible from the offer, from the business tax. movement, or some suggestion that that ought to be

amortised and not deducted. radio, r business is in and 100% of revenue comes from advertising. 80%, that posed a very real and present danger to of the broadcast industry. we worked very hard and were leadership of the house and the senate and the white house, that we were not paid for. so, yes, we look forward to lower rates. here's other provisions in there, that some of my broadcasters don't like, and and things like that. those are her business that they'll have to figure out under the new tax broadcasters nce, have a lot to be thankful for, for. we weren't a paid and the broadcasting remains move the very best way to commerce through our

advertising. > you mentioned the next generation tv standard. atp.30. an f.c.c. authorised initiative to go ahead on a voluntary basis. here has been criticism, including consumer groups that say the problem is once they are deployed it forces consumers to get tv sets. he ones they have now will not use it. that is not good. we are talking about years down the road. a lot of benefits from it. what would you say to the criticism. i brought an iphone 10. and by that logic, you would say tax. d a i don't think i paid a tax. i saw a better phone and bought it. if, in the future, people see an opportunity to buy a a vastly that has more capacity and optionality, well do that. it is voluntary, because of signal onl send out a the 1.0 standard and the 3.0

standard. have no incentive to do anything, to make sure that many people want to see the content can see it. that, and isers spect we want that. so we are not going to try to in any way, ystem but offer a future to the american people. offers 4 k pictures. immersive sound. internet, intraoper ability, mobility such that in the fewer have a dongle and put it watch ur phone and ipad broadcast television for free. is so much for the american people that i'm that this f.c.c. said on a voluntary basis we can proceed. samsung and lg. i visited them in korea, they'll sets that evision have duel receivers in there. now, that's down in the future.

a decade. sions last and then new technology comes something want to buy new. they'll have a lot more to buy in terms of what it can bring in their homes in the future having thethe f.c.c. courage to say america led from analogue to digital. lead into the worldwide standard. et's provide worldwide leadership with the new standard. it's a wonderful thing they have done. >> will there be a time when someone will be forced to get a new set. no, and the biggest concern is the backward compatibility, is why we'll have two ignals, there'll be channel sharing. but we don't have the spectrum to e we went from analogue digital. we had extra channels to go to. is whyt have that, which the channel sharing idea will

facilitate this. we y broadcaster is saying have no reason contractually our own advertisers or business model requiring us to give all the content we can on receiver standard. >> you mentioned iphone. nab has been critical of apple. apple is a maker of smartphones fm t does not have activated chip. apple says in some of the phones the chip is there, it's not activated. and other phones, it's not there. there are other manufacturers activated it. and nab says on a voluntary that, it's folks do good for the consumers, can you give us a sense for if you feel that apple might do that? >> we hope so. a tough apple is business to get into. they are smart people, they have and i deeplytform, respect and enjoy their

products. do think it's a great verizon, t to atnt and and sprint and team mobile and others that voluntarily their fm chips in their home. these are not apple phones, but the android devices you can et over the air radio which does not go against your data cap. you are using less battery life. lot of consumer protection in this. use efficiency. and i think public safety is hope apple will one day consider, and i must of my friend tory gary shapiro, who runs a onsumer electronics association. consumer technology association now. was never for this until he was caught in the californian fires, and wrote a piece about his experience when they lost

power. city and everything went down. lights from off. off. ere cellphones didn't work, they crashed. just wish saying i that it's got power, but can't signal. i wish it had an fm chip so find be safe, to go to rescued and get out of here. car, ended up going to his car radio and turning it on to in out what was happening this calamity that be set the valley, he became a convert to the public safety of having an fm chip lit up in the cell phone. hope one day apple will see hat, an additive to the value product. great ever since the individual

a tough word around capital hill. congress.ican will not ds say we pass a mandate. in the fullness of time, we as a country ought to do it, what very other country does, they will mandate it. when the japanese san army, that tsunami, it proved a great life saver to many caught nuclear change, they had radio on the cell phone. receivership, t that requires a cell. there's a case to be made for it. we concluded our best case it to to the companies and make the business case to them. a lot of the revenue that can come to them this way, what they some of lose by having free radio on a

cell phone. get radio on a cell phone through an app. hat's a digital stream, that goes against your data caps and eats up battery life. more efficient. >> senator smith, you mentioned apple. tv, netflix. amazon, et cetera, et cetera. competitors ew fitting into the marketplace. >> obviously it's a more marketplace, and you sale between the fox and disney for century 21 and to be in the business. look at google and netflix and amazon and facebook. they are getting into the content business. it will have an impact on who is producing the shows you watched. i think obviously fox made

to have ion that - scale. disney will be better scaled to have hashan they would a stand-alone. the s are shifting in marketplace. >> as we referenced earlier, is say tv channel or tv station, with the lines blurring. not in the i love lucy era any more. more with the new entrants. you have to have scale. chairman pie is now taking up television sue of ownership in various markets the issue. ing are associations debating that vigorous vigorously. we await their direction as to nab's position should be. we know that there's lots of

attention given to how larger should be, howon many markets it can cover. how much ownership can be in any city. these are the kinds of things that are all being debated now the f.c.c. we are a part of that. > which is one of the major issues debated at the national association of broadcasters. > i would think that the national cap of 39% is something hat members are debating vigorously right now. trying to come to a unified possession. left at 39%. others say 50%, some say there no limitation, and the f.c.c. is always - always had as a policy to keep television small.ip somehow that's to serve other public policy. one handthey keep us mooth, but approve at&t and direct tv marching.

all kinds of huge corps entities merging now. were kept small. and that makes it difficult for compete sometimes when they go and negotiate deals.mission consent >> should world sinclair tribunal go through. a position on e any one issue, all i plead is don't do this y on the basis of politics, but the fits within the rules, guidelines, the statues, the f.c.c. and the justice have to conclude whether this complies with us. it does, they will permit if. if it doesn't. required them to spin-off a few television stations. that decision to the business people in the f.c.c. of the coming back to that. there was a time years ago, it

before you came to the nab. remember that you were pushed back and that's why you said you would go with route.luntary >> yes, we were pushed back. >> from the hill. >> it wasn't we took a bill in. in talking to members, they said we'd rather you did this through market rather than government mandate and regulation. >> i respect that. successful on the android platform, not the apple. platform. >> and regarding 39% cap, do you of the issues when the f.c.c. adopted a notice on that wasrecently whether the f.c.c. has the authority to do it. it against.s put when republicans voted for the notice. the dn't think that was party to do it without congress. o you think the f.c.c. has the authoritiy to remove that cap or moderate the cap. >> the courts will tell us that.

a member of the senate, when the 39% cap was established. of it was a result compromise. and it is a statutory thing, attended to the quad renial review that is a statutory requirement. so if you give a strict reading to the statute. as part t race the cap of a quad renial review. it outside ofaise the quad renial review. i don't know the answer to that. but they are two legitimate legal arguments that will be made. and but they have to decide that. cap may decide to move the or eliminate the cap. i don't know which. whetherthe court decide or not that was a total on their ability to deal with it or whether it was review.uad renial >> news gathering comes.

news gathering during times of emergencies saying look what stations are at the nd gathering network or the national level criticism by president trump. nd he asked them to consider, provoke licences. president trump doesn't like the reporting. curious to get you to weigh in on what you think. broadcasters. >> i would say that criticism and the he presidency media, in all of its forms is new.ng it existed since george washington's time. resident donald trump seems to have enjoyed the contest more than most. - raises it all the time. some of my broadcasters have do we do. and my answer is well, trump ratings, you reat may need to beef up security,

no in the end, there's threat to the first amendment. committed is totally to the public policies, the f.c.c. ation act and an licence, and so it's - a lot of bravado, and it's part of the current political environment. don't know how constructive it is. contest. e a it seems more electric than normal. concern just ave hat he's asking to raise it or view industry to take an action based on politics, and chairman if i don't do this i won't be chairman for long. about i have no worry that. i know he is committed to the first amendment. licence that he broadcasters deliver on every day. and it serves the american people.

well. very i think the atmosphere is a little difficult right now. the end, our most fundamental ight in the first amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of and contest. still in the cornerstone. i don't know whether president trump read sullivan versus new one of the it's things you learn in law school. and most of the issues around are state law, not federal law. in the end, the united states is very committed to the freedom of the press, and of chalk it up to our fight. t loves a good it's amazing to watch. we are not worried about our licences, we are worried about the commitment to the first amendment.

you can r smith, maybe set us straight. when we have the cable communities, we have issues concerns, and the national association of broadcasters at the table. seems to be a different issue each group. and every couple of months such and story about such provider dropping such and network. > let me say what great esteem i have for michael powell. my brother that runs the cable association. and cable broadcast need each other. fight overviewership and content. it's decisions engaged in, and i of d note at a matter record, that the viewership for than for ng is higher

cable. pay the cannes tent programming than for highly watch. watchers rs and cable have to come up with a right price that is fair and connected viewerership. looking ahead 5-10 years, how will be we watching tv. viewain, the future for my is very bright for broadcasting 3.0 receiveris new standard, because it - it will give - it's investing dramatically into our - the spectrum, and our it will wake up your phone. if there's an emergency in

can be ghbourhood, you alerted through broadcast signal. the tremendous pictures and sounds capabilities augment. ive and and the internet. via broadcast signal. is a one way signal. to every one in the geographic area. in the future, internet inter operable, if a him. wants to talk to it will come back through signal. and there'll be an opportunity o have more engagement with your television broadcaster. and in the political world i existed when i was on the ballot. t will enable the ability of broadcaster to provide political advertising for members of to the people and the districts they represent. >> instead of them having to pay money... >> if you go to new york city

an election you'll see a lot of adds from new jersey. gives the ability of the candidate to put ads to people can vote for them and leave everyone else free from seeing ads. >> can you purpose them off, if consumer? as a >> i suppose. part of the advantage of the if r opper ability is that you choose to respond to they ing on television, can then send ads to you that may be of interest to you. but, of course, everybody doesn't necessarily like adds. the other and, that is how we move a lot of commerce, blank in the al health of our economy is the mer information, in form of advertising. and so it will - it will make meaningful to e you, more interesting to you.

obviously the future for broadcast television is very, very bright instead. smith the president and c.e.o. of the national broadcasters, r educator irby asenior at telecommunications reports. >> this is 25 minutes. >>.